tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 7, 2015 3:00am-5:01am EDT
doubt? i was not in doubt but suppose you were. don't you think you would consult the people who wrote the rules? well the people who wrote the rules do not think he had an interest. david obey was the chairman. he asserts clearly emphatically , both in an affidavit that he wrote that does not fit george maddox case. he does not have an interest in legislation. the rules that david and his committee wrote. carroll sawyer, former republican member from michigan who served on that committee along with david obey, says the same thing. i have here an affidavit. he states that same conclusion.
there is an affidavit from donald f terry. he was employed with the committee on small business. it was charged in 1976 -- new rules of official conduct of the house. he refers to book royalties. i should come to that next. in these matters, these three people who had a great deal to do with writing the rules say that is not what they intended. where else might you turn? might you not possibly go to the committee itself and see what opinions it has given? here is
the publication that the committee sends to tell us what is legal. each year we received this, as instructions to fill out the statement. appendix e is advisory number 10, which defines who has a direct interest in legislation under the law. it says if the member does not believe that the donor of the gift has a special interest in the congressional legislative process which sets him apart from the general public, then the member should feel free to accept such gifts. then he defines who has an
interest in legislation -- four classes. registered lobbyists. george maddox is not a registered lobbyist. someone who employs a rich lobbyists. george maddox never did that. finally, any other individual which the member knows -- not should know -- or suspect or infer, has a distinct interest in influencing the legislative process. not just someone who has an interest financially in the outcome. not at all. somebody that you know has a direct interest in influencing
the outcome of the legislative process. that sets that individual apart from the general public. that was not the case with george maddox. so he had no direct interest in legislation, that anybody could define. we have motions before the committee to set that aside. set aside that presumption that the man had a direct interest. only thing they have suggested is 1986, his son borrowed money from a savings-and-loan to build a shopping center. totally apart from any investments that maddox had anything to do with. in 1987, the lending institution
had to close. the year that betty was employed was 1981 to 1984 he could not have known, 1980 one and 1984, that his son was gone to borrow money in 1986 -- 1981 and 1984, that his son was going to our money in 1986. anyway, would you stress the thing to the point of saying that anybody who has a member of his family that owes money to a bank is forbidden? of course you would not hear it that would cover more than -- you would not. that will cover more than half the citizens in the country. people who wrote the rules do not believe he was covered. people who have been interpreting the rules do not believe he is covered.
that motion ought to be agreed to. if the rules mean anything here it -- if the rules mean anything. we're not going to turn the rules on its head. the other basic question, and in the statement of alleged violations, and the sales of books. reflections of a public man which i wrote. which was sold sometimes in bulk quantities. the people took it and gave it away to other people. students, newspapers public officials and members of their organizations. i wanted them to. i wanted to get the widest -- the whitest distribution of the --widest distribution of the book.
it is probably not great literature, but i like it. jim lehrer, dr. tucker of tcu said nice things about it. i appreciate that. the contention of the committee is this book project of which i got 325 -- of which i got $3.25 -- is a scheme of which -- d think i would do something like that? the purpose of the book -- i did not get any advance. the purpose of the book was to
publish something that could be published and get wide distribution. if monetary gain had been my interest, do not you think i would not have gone to one of the big madison avenue publications. they give you a big advance. i know people who have received advances before a single book sells. twice and three times as much as i got. if it had been a scheme to get around outside earnings, that is what i might have done. i've heard that the author of a book called mayflower madam got $750,000 in advance royalties. the former speaker, mr. o'neill,
was set to receive $1 million for his readable book in advance before any was sold. i have read that a woman named to the kelly -- a woman named kitty kelley has received $2 million, 40 book she wrote about nancy reagan. -- for a book she wrote about nancy reagan. it is true that people on my staff were eager to sell these books. they need -- they knew i wanted them so. i have to accept some responsibility. the rule does not say it was wrong. it could have been an overall scheme to avoid outside earnings. the rules exempt royalty income.
that is attested to by david obey and donald terry. they give the rationale it was not any exception. book royalties were exempt. now maybe they should not have been. maybe somebody got the impression that buying a book was the price of getting me to make a speech. i never intended that were suggested that. i hope that friends of mine did not. while the books that were sold the outside counsel suggest seven cases involved instances where individuals associated with organizations to which i made speeches bought multiple copies and distributed them among members. i have not been committed to see
the copies of their testimony, so i do not know what they are saying. i have asked people on my staff did you tell these folks that they had to buy these books? and they said no, they did not. the total amount as i figure from all of those sales is about 7000 cap -- is about $7,700. it is about what i received. i will do whatever is necessary all right. if anyone was under the impression that i was not going to make a speech less you bought a lot of books. i do not want the money. that is not important. what is important is the person's honor and integrity. during that. -- during that period, they said i made speeches to book -- made speeches and they bought these books.
i made 700 speeches for which i do not get any honorarium. i do not offer to send anyone any books. you suppose that would've been an overall scheme? it would not have been a wider experience. i do not know. i am saying that i did not intend to violate the outside limitations. i do not think i did. some of the rest of you make a lot of speeches. how many's teachers do you suppose that's how many speeches do you suppose you make you do not get anything for? most of us do. what can i do? one other thing about the books i suppose needs elaboration. it involves the allegation in
the statement of alleged violations, that a man named jean piped paid for more books than he got. we do not deliver enough books to him. that is what was said. s gene pate upon reading that report issued an affidavit that is not ambiguous. here's what he says. i will read in part this affidavit. he says i have read the report of outside counsel, on the preliminary inquiry -- as it relates to my testimony.
i also have reviewed the transcript of my deposition testimony. the report and also the conclusion reached by counsel ignored much of the most pertinent testimony in the transcript. takes certain statements out of context. distorts clear statements and facts, and in general fails to summarize the matters. at the conclusion reached by the council, right violated --wrigtht violated the rules is based upon the assertion that gene pate did not receive books. he testified that he received 700 copies of the books for
$6,000. he makes the flat statement that gene pate did not receive the books. citing as authority pate transcript. here's what hate says. on the contrary, i did not testify. i stated not once but three times that i believed 1000 books were delivered to me. the special counsel ignored this test -- this testimony. instead he site transcript 77 and that citation does not support the special counsel's assertion. the transcript 77 shows congressman myers, not i, made the comment, "i believe you said you received 3500 books? " i did not confirm that recollection.
this is a copy of the affidavit which i would like to submit for the record, together with a copy of a letter sent by the committee to mr. pate, after he sent this affidavit telling him he ought not to comment. what do you think that?-citizen reputable citizen of my community misquoted in a document published at all the expense, sent widely to newspapers throughout the country, widely cited as authority, uncritically, assumed to be accurate, the citizen being misquoted issues and affidavit to straighten it out, so that he is not misquoted in the public record. then he's warned by the committee that he might be held in violation.
first amendment rights supersede any rule of any committee. any citizen of the united states ought to have the right to have his own testimony correctly characterized, and not be threatened or silenced by a house committee. any house committee close to the citizen that right and privilege. those are the matters that penned before the committee and our motion to dismiss. those motions could clear the air. rules are important, like the constancy of what a law means is important to a citizen. they can resolve these legal
issues as to what constitutes direct legislation, and whether or not exempt as the rules say they are. it is important for motions to be ruled upon. i hope the committee will look at it, from that standpoint and grant our motions. members are entitled to know what the rules mean. if they still mean what they meant when they were written. maybe the rules need to be changed. if so, let us change them the legal way. let us vote on them. maybe the whole process needs some change and clarification. we may want to consider -- the house may want to consider establishing a house counsel to whom members can look for official advice and then rely on that advice.
rules of the committee might need some pre-consideration having gone through this agonizing experience for about a year. almost every day there is a new story in the newspaper leaked, without any chance to know what is coming next. no chance for me to go to the committee and answer it and say that is not correct. maybe the committee is currently required to set as grand jury and petit jury ought to have a different comes -- if a composition rather than the same that are setting to judge them. it is difficult for members to announce that there is a violation and then dismiss charges against a member.
maybe once every port of an alleged violation is issued, the committee rules allow the remember to respond quickly. it is unfair. once alleged violations are announced, the committee ought to release the evidence that it has to indicate that that happened. my case, the committee has that has yet to release any documents. why hide the evidence? what is there to hide? this ought not to be the kind of proceeding in which strategic maneuvering be allowed to override fundamental relations of fair play. i urge the abolition of the gag order, which the committee says
for bids any witness who comes next this position -- next deposition from discussing publicly are telling his side. i suppose the charges which the committee concludes are unfounded should not be published and disseminated as though they were true. there are other things you want to consider. i'm in the trying to get -- i'm trying to give you an exhaustive list of what might happen. i know there are others who have views that are equally relevant. perhaps we want to consider an outright abolition of all honorariums -- of all honorarium in speaking fees. maybe we want to do that. it is up to the house. in exchange for straightforward honest increase in salary for members of all three branches.
it is hurtful to our government that qualified members of the executive and legislative branches are resigning because of the ambiguities and confusion surrounding the ethics laws and their one consequent vulnerability to personal attack. that's a shame. it is grievously hurtful to our society when the vacation comes an accepted form of debate. when negative campaigning becomes a full-time occupation. when members of each party become self-appointed vigilantes, carrying out personal vendettas against members of the other party. that is not what this institution is supposed to be about.
when vengeance becomes more desirable than vindication. harsh personal attacks upon one another's motives and characters -- and character drown out the logic of serious debate on important issues. things that we ought to be involved ourselves in. surely that is unworthy of our institution -- unworthy of our american political process. both political parties must resolve to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end. there has been enough. [applause]
his honor and truth of what he said were assumed. he didn't have to prove it. i rather one-time cleef bailey west virginia, in a moment of impassioned concern over a terror bill jumped up and made an objective -- made an ejection to the fact that chet hollifield had voted. he shouted our answers to the vote and bailey said i object to the vote to the gentleman from california being counted. he said he was not in the chamber and was not entitled to vote. it was a closed vote -- it was a close vote. speaker rayburn grew red as a tomato and i thought he was going to break the gavel when he hammered. he said the chair always takes the word of a member. not because i was sitting behind bailey, i heard other members
say, you are wrong. chet was back there behind the rail and i was standing by him when he answered, his answer just wasn't hurt. and others said, you shouldn't have said that. and cleaned bailey -- cleave bailey crusty old west virginia and came down here in the italy with tears in his eyes apologize for having questioned the word of a member. we need that. have i made mistakes? how many? i made a lot. mistake in judgment yeah, a lot of them. i'll make some more. recently, let me just comment on this briefly because it's such a sensational thing. injuries been done to me in this
particular moment because of it. john mack, many of you remember him. i think a lot of you like them respect him. i helped him one time in his life when he was 19 years old. i did not know him. never had met him. i did not know the nature of a crime that he -- that he had been convicted of. i knew only that john mack was a young man whom my daughter had known in high school. my daughter was married to his brother. that is how she knew about john. she mentioned it to me. all i knew was that he had been convicted of assault and he served 27 months in a fairfax county jail. contrary to what has been published i did not interfere with the court. i did not have anything to do with his sentencing. i did not know and did not
inquire as to the exact nature of the crime. the sheriff's office in fairfax county asked me if i know of any job that i could help this a man get. they wanted to parole him. i gave him a job as a file clerk. $9,000 a year. after that, he blossomed and grew. those of you who know him cannot conceive when finally just two years ago i read in the newspaper the precise nature of that crime. it did not fit his character. married and had two beautiful children, responsible. i think became a very fine person. was that bad judgment? maybe so.
it does have anything to do with the rules but it got all mixed up. i do not think that it was bad judgment to try to give a young man a second chance. maybe i should have known more about it, but in this case i think he has turned out well. i do not believe that america really stands for the idea that a person should forever be condemned, but i think maybe to have a second chance. that is what i thought in the case of john mack. good or bad, that is it. i believe in giving somebody a second chance. have i contributed to this idea of frenzy of feeding on other people's reputations? have i caused a lot of this? maybe i have. i hope i have not. maybe i have. have i been to partisan?
too insistent? to abrasive? to determined to have my weight? perhaps. if i have offended anybody in the other party, i am sorry. i never meant to. i would not have done so intentionally. always try to treat our colleagues with respect. are the things i do differently if i had them to do over again? how many may i name for you? i tell you what i'm going to make your proposition. let me give you back this job you gave to me as a propitiation
for all of this season of bad will that is grown among us. give it back to you. i will resign as speaker of the house effective upon the election of my successor. i'll ask that we call a caucus on the democratic side for next tuesday to choose a successor. i do not want to be a party to tearing of the institution. i love it. to tell you the truth, this year , it has been very difficult for me to offer the kind of leadership that our organization needs, because every time i have tried to talk about the needs of the country, about the needs for
affordable homes, jack camps idea and the idea developing. every time i try to talk about the need for minimum wage, the need for day care centers embracing ideas on both sides of the aisle, the media have not been interested. they wanted to ask me about petty personal finances. you need somebody else. so i want to give you that back. we will have a caucus on tuesday. then i will offer to resign from the house before the end of june. let that be a total payment for the anger we feel toward each other.
let's not try to get even with each other. republicans, please do not get it in your hands you need to get some body else, because of john tower. democrats, please do not feel that you need to get somebody on the other side because of me. we ought to be more mature than that. let's restore to this institution the priorities of what is good for this country. let us all work together to try to achieve them. the nation has important is this. it cannot afford these distractions. that is why i offered to resign. -- that is why i offer to resign. i have enjoyed these years in congress.
i am grateful for all of you who have taught me things and have been patient with me. horace greeley had a quote that harry truman used to like. "fame is a paper. popularity, an accident. richest take wings. those who cheer today may curse tomorrow. only one things in -- only one thing in doers character." i am not a better man. i'm not going to be. i am a lucky man. god has given me the privilege of serving the greatest institution on earth, for a great many years. i am grateful to the people of
my district in texas. i'm grateful to you, my colleagues. god bless this institution. god bless the united states. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> former house speaker jim wright died this morning at age 92. the democrat served the fort worth area of texas for 34 years. two years as speaker until he resigned in 1989. he was the first to step down due to an ethics scandal. here is the former congas meant talking about his experience as bigger of the house. at an event hosted by the library of congress. this is about 45 minutes.
[applause] former representative wright: i think you for that introduction. i cannot begin without commenting about the most sentimental attachment i have to this occasion here in this gracias room -- gracias room. it was exactly 31 years ago today, on november 12, 1972, that i had the honor of my life to be married to betsy, and it
was right here in this room, by the grace of the speaker that we had our wedding reception. [applause] when they told me i had about 25 or 30 minutes, i set down very diligently and tried to commit to paper all of those important things that i thought i should share. it comes out to 32 minutes. you will be great relieved i am not going to read it to you. i am sure that danny rostenkowski will be relieved, because he's to say jim, you cannot say hello in less than 30 minutes. [laughter]
let me just visit with you a little and try to test the high spots. i was moved by danny story about tip on that first morning that we went to breakfast with president jimmy carter. some of the rest of you have some recollection of this, by the leadership in the morning. the next time on tuesday when we had a meeting, it was a lavish feast. scrambled eggs and all kinds of things. i was sitting beside tip, when this waiter brings this huge platter of grits. he sets them in front of the speaker's face and says "mr. speaker, but he has some grits? " he looks at the marvelous amount of mush and says "i will try
one." [laughter] forgive me for this anecdote, but i think danny's having them here this morning will trigger a memory in his mind. tom will remember this. we would go there on friday--- the president who was presiding was a devoutly religious man. he will call on one of us to open this thing with a prayer. and after a while, we had been doing this three or four weeks and i sent between tip and my friend walter mondale. some of you may know he was the son of a methodist minister but sometimes asked someone to pray. he would nudge me and say, jim, i do not know. i gave you a b minus. but on this particular occasion,
tip was marveling because he had grown up in the catholic church as a devout catholic, and those were the days before pope john the 23rd when the public had very little to do with mass. it was for the clergy exclusively. he said to tip as we left -- tip says to president carter, mr. president, i cannot quit marveling, you protestants know how to pray. the president said, some confusion, i have not -- i haven't the faintest idea who is a protestant, who is catholic, jewish. that said, for your information, these guys who come every tuesday, except for danny in me, are protestants except when the senate brings up somebody jewish , but we are the only catholics.
then when he left, it hit. tip said i realized what i had done to the president. next tuesday he would -- he is going to call on danny or me to show us that he is tolerant. so he says, danny, you pray next tuesday. danny said, you're kidding. sure enough, next tuesday, the president calls on him, then he would you leave us in a prayer? and bringing forth the most eloquent stream of magnificence that would have come from the archbishop of canterbury, or the reverend jesse jackson. none of them could have done it better. tip nudges me and said i'd -- and said you did not think i could do it, did you? the president says "a plus."
this is been a marvelous occasion. i hope that it is beneficial for all of us, looking back, and rejoicing in things that we shared. it reminds me to be chosen by one's colleagues to serve in the capacity of speaker is probably the greatest honor and responsibility that anyone could bestow. the speakership offers to any occupant fully as many challenges as that occupant is prepared to accept. some like sam rayburn and henry clay seized and appropriated those powers to do great things for the country and make major change. some like joe cannon who we
commemorate today and thomas reed extended and stretch those powers to become dominant of the house, or the members on other occasions, some to preside with the core and fairness. then other people pushed the agenda. in all these years, i guess the speakership has been changing times and individual speakers have seen such a makeup. when i became a member of congress enacting 55, sam rayburn was speaker. he impressed me. i must have surely formed unconsciously my whole concept about what a speakers role should be from sam raber's --
from sam rayburn's example. and then later these 32 years and all, before i became a speaker, i love friendship of members -- and from their lives at an example and exalted role in my mind of what is bigger is in should be. quite possible and impossibly ambitious idea of what a speaker on to be and to accomplish. not to say that whatever the speaker compasses or is accomplished during his term is a one-man show. it is not. in this room today are people who shared with me the agonies of trying to figure out what can
we do in this situation. one of them is tom foley and one of them is dan rustin to -- dan rostenkowski. the speakership under dan raven was something that and it my desk that entered my consciousness as a model of how a speaker should be. sam raven made things happen. he was an activist speaker, but he was ever the quintessential southern gentleman. he treated all of us like gentlemen. in his view, we all were. speaker raburn once said the chair always takes the word of a member on one occasion, a point was made about the members representation as he has been in the chamber at the time qualifying him to vote on an
issue. the chair always takes the word of a member. he insisted on fairness, the corm and stability. one of his greatest teachings that entered my unconscious mind was that the greatest asset in anywhere and -- the greatest asset anywhere in the western world can have is the ability to disagree. -- ability to disagree without being disagreeable. those others have heard them say that. i have a very vivid memory of his way of talking to us. he never cajoled. he never promised any reward for our going along with things that were good for the nation. this occurred in my second term in 1957. it was the first civil rights bill that had been passed by the
senate and established by some legislative legend, i guess then majority leaders under johnson. so that it could be voted upon in past and become law prior to that time, southern groups was also for any civil rights bill to death and since these times there has not been a civil rights bill that passed the house and senate because they passed the house and members were desk civilization or popularity would cause them to vote. the vote did not mean anything in the house because this time it came over here and whatever was passed was real law. it set loose a chain reaction throughout the south, and almost volcanic lava of hot anger from
news media. many of that cascaded and threatening all manner of recognition. raven sent a page to bring me up to this podium. ira member what he said. he said, jim, i think you want to vote for this bill. i'm sure you're getting all manner of correspondence threatening you with reprisals if you do. i think you are strong enough to overcome that. i know you will be proud that you did. it is that simple. that is why i loved it. i guess that is why i started to like him. all the others i care for and served and try to help, i have gained a reinforcement of that notion.
when i became speaker in 1987, the nation was confronted with four crises -- four very important problem. they were the business of the house and the senate. one of them was a big budget deficit. one was a looming face deficit. the third was a growing social deficit which was about six years and accumulating in reducing the level of support in schools and hospitals and other social activities throughout this country, as well as infrastructural demands, that were the lifeline of roads and bridges. all those things that service. before i could summon together the kind of strategic approach
that i thought might work, a fourth crisis grabbed us by the throat. six weeks before i was sworn in as speaker newspapers suddenly burst forth with the scandalous revelation of the iran half and contra activities -- iran-contra activities which was the biggest sort of federal scandal since the stories erupted about watergate. it involved central american wars which had been as divisive to the contras as any issue since the vietnam war. i can see looming on the horizon immediately a constitutional crisis. they discovered what had happened and that money -- weapons had been sold to iran and that they had been given to overthrow the government of miquelon worth, which the congress had voted to disband
and discontinue only the past year. we learned these things have been done without any notification of congress. then we learned that at that moment, it leaked out all the papers and evidential material and writing was being systematically expunged and done away with, before the congress could get back into session and subpoena it. it burst forth among house members. because wherever democrats gather, you hear first grumbles and then growls and whispers became louder that laws had been violated. six specific laws had been violated and there were offenses creeping in. i wanted no part of that. that could have been because the
constitutional crisis that could have thrown us completely off course off-balance, and without any ability to come to grips with these other problems. those were the things we had to face. i discussed those problems daily with tom foley, wise and more cautious than i. magnificent majority leader. only reside very heavily brilliant and creative. david bonier, my chief deputy whip who i appointed with care, because he was respected by all the new members as well as the members standing in the congress. we needed that help and he provided him -- and he provided it in a magnificent way.
as well as the advice that they offered. what were we to do? the budget crisis we had in the last six years some of the amount we were spending on military preparedness from about $148 billion in 1980 two almost $300 billion. and for the money that was necessary to meet this demand which amounted then to approximately 30% of our total budget and about half of the discretionary budget, we had just had a big tax cut in 1981. i merely to investors with the idea it would simulate investment and economy, but it was taking $155 billion a year out of the revenues they came to the government, the consequence of all of that was the national
debt which was under $1 trillion in 1980. now it has been tripled, aiming towards $8 trillion. we thought something had to be done about that. -- those who are in the house at that time can remember it was taking problems and anyone who can find some reason to oppose it, you had -- you had to have a valid reason to oppose it. what was it going to take if we had to make some reductions in the deficit? i was blessed by having a man who was articulate and wise and thoughtful. he was able to leave that she was able to lead the budget committee. he invited me over through these problems and finally came with a resolution that would reduce the deficit by $36 billion annually.
half of that in new taxes. translate taxes not a really popular word. ronald reagan, when he found it necessary to replace some of the loss in the 1981 tax cut had referred to those taxes that we had in 1982 as revenue enhancers. they were taxes. by whatever name, a rose is a rose. and some people do not have the sweet sense of smell that has the fragrance. it was not easy. we had $18 billion in new revenues, and new taxes. we divided the other $18 billion in cuts, almost identically between military and domestic expenditures.
we passed that resolution in the house and it went over the senate and came back. we had one heck of a time they'll tell you about that vote. that vote in which i assumed the responsibility of holding that vote open for about 10 minutes occurred on the reconciliation bill that was to carry this out. if i had one thing i wish i hadn't done, that would be it. i would not have assumed that extraordinary debt, though it was legal, though there was presidents for it. i had been told of two members that some of them on the way back over from the house gymnasium, it was a tie vote and on the tie votes, you lose. and people saying, vote, take it
to order. and i got somebody slapping the back of the chair. i thought he busted the chair. i was pretending to be very judicious. my face was tomato red. anyway, those guys never showed up. this guy who comes down and changes the vote. it was legal, but i should have had more consideration. it did not do much good anyway, after all, we do not get those additional revenues. i overmatched myself. if i thought i could make a popular, charming, articulate president on his own grounds and beat him on his new taxes, we just did not do it. i guess you give us what we
wound up with was at least not making matters worse. we did not add that year to the deficit. to the national debt. as a matter fact, one of the interesting things about it was that the amount we paid in interest has tripled from $50 billion in 1980 two 150 billion but reduced the amount, so i panned out pretty well. if anything, we get a c or ac plus -- or a c plus. the trade deficit had just been begun to be a matter of serious concern to the public. it already had leaked something into the conscience of the average american. six years earlier, at the beginning of that decade, we had been the world largest creditor in the nation. more nations of more money to us
than any other nation. in 1987, we were the world biggest debtor, we owed more money to other countries. we had changed from creditors to borrowers. we had changed to the extent we were not only buying -- we were not only barring money to finance from a bar -- finance from abroad. americans were buying when it is $75 billion more each year in goods produced then we were selling in american-made goods abroad and we were worried about that. and we were financing those by borrowing and also borrowing and also barring money to pay our national debt. most foreigners were beginning to buy up real property. i am talking about we wanted to turn it around.
i sat down eager to do something bipartisan snlywith some people who in the business community we had been appointed by the president john young and a group to look into this matter. they made it a point and they tried to ignore it and president johnson came and talked to me about that and we came up with the idea of a national trade conference. ironically to be held here in this room. talk about bob dole in the senate who was minority leader in the senate and bob byrd and we agreed bring in experts from this and some in the academic community, well somehow i -- without intending
too much have offended the administration. they weren't used to congress taking the initiative. in matters of this kind and they kind of wanted to sort of withdrawal from joint sponsorship. meanwhile, we had sent out a letter on these experts to come on given days and signed by all four of us. i was disappointed because i wanted their stories because i knew there would be other opportunities and we would find ways to make that and we did it to the extent of our abilities but so many useless suggestions and ideas emerged from this meeting, i realized it would be the business of at least 12 committees of congress. and if you want cooperation in
committees don't depend on their jurisdictions. so what we did then was we called in all the committee chairs and subcommittee chairs to be involved. add some incentive actives to business to marginalize and so forth and to do those things that would be necessary together with some things that would ask other countries to be with us that they seek labor fairly so it wouldn't be altering opportunities for american businesses to close factories here and open practices abroad on various slave labor wages. they appealed to everybody. and there was some things in the republican side and some things on the democratic side, all of them were useful. how to make people treat fairly some intangible things and valuable things as intellectual properties. and so forth. big, big deal. turned out to have 12
titles. their commitments and a timetable, that became an important element of our efforts. we would give to the big deals and we had to limit them to a real leadership agenda items. i think there was six or seven in the first year. trade bill was one. highway bill was one. and the resolution, of course, was one. and there was a few others. the first homeless legislation was one but we knew we could push only so far on this social agenda. on april 28 of 1987, we went over to the senate and stayed there for over the year, it wasn't reported back with
modifications until september -- august, i guess, summer of the next year. we had one provision in it that the president didn't like. and that was the provision that said actually planning to close a factory here and open abroad must notify its employees, its workers 90 days in advance. i see someone who was here today was helping us rise in this matter. as a permanent official in the labor department and is now distinguished attorney with real credentials in world trade. and we held this provision in the bill which the president doesn't -- and
intellectual capacity, he didn't like. it offended his -- he says there's no place in the trade bill. now, we should have had a confrontation, on that issue and may have -- we said that for the wisdom, all of us are taking together but to separate this provision out so the bill, separate bill passed the trade bill identically, it was not separated and passed that deal on the same day as two separate bills. they can sign them both. so they were raising the big challenge, i think, that confronted my speakership and was sort of a balancing act in a way. besides
advance a progressive agenda that was opposed actually by popular and cherished by the president, a lot of public following while at the same time , sort of be a ledge between him and his various thoughts on international affairs and that was a big change. i don't know how well we jumped to it. i think on the social deficit and on the trade deficit, it may have gotten an a minus since they may have given us an a and only gather what we did, come out to be about a b. hanging over us. what are you going to do about this? coming to me saying they wanted
to set up individual hearings on those portions of the laws that had been violated. well, i could see it coming. that's what everybody wanted. the house could have been generated into a 10 ring circus. that was the entire public intention driven by the media. on the one issue. we had business to perform. and i didn't see any point in trying to embarrass the president of the united states. wasn't necessary. he swore that he had hold of these things and i desperately wanted to believe him and chose to believe him so i sat down with bob dole, the leader in the senate and he felt exactly as i did. that it would be counterproductive to get into the president about it or try to blame him or maybe that's not the mood in congress
today. he had only three years to go. what would it profit the nation so have a big controversial constitutional concentration for some people in a system that may be all a height for that? we decided we would have one hearing. not a proliferation. house and senate and our side, appointed chairman of the appropriate committees of jewish rather and lou of intelligence and danja and the chairman of the military affairs and on the senate side, it was the same thing. we had reasonable people and i decided they would have somebody on a ranking member of the foreign affairs and had been chairman of intelligence committee would be a good man to share it with him. he was not confrontational and
respected by everybody on the house side and in no way on the senate side and we had a responsible hearing and i wish that everybody i asked to serve on that committee these don't want to hear the word impeachment or get it on the table. let everyone see it. don't cover a thing up. but i'm not interested in seeing people go to jail. i'm interested in seeing everyone acknowledge what the lines in the house or senate, their integrity is presevered and there also be a base in the future. that was my view of it. the biggest thing, i think, i'm proudest of in all of it began with tom. tom had served in the congress and we worked together on a few things. i as a democrat, he as
a republican and i liked him and trusted him and he came to me with an idea that it was new. we had been fighting like cats and dogs about whether to revive this and he talked us into slowly reviving the government at nicaragua. we talked about south america and he says, why don't we do something different? he said why don't you and ronald reagan join the issue calling on all those five countries in central america would have been more than 100,000 innocent deaths in just this last decade. to come together and jointly by all that they would not violate
each other's country and jointly promised that they would make piece in their own countries and let it be determined by ballots instead of bullets. see if we can get them ato agree to have a cease-fire within their borders and bring both sides together and then give amnesty to those who are the other side so they can have a vote. and elect and abide by the will of the majority. oh, boy! >> i like that. and stop â >> but end up -- i'm calling people i know in central america. the president-elect is president, first elected president who was -- continues in 400 years in el salvador.
they said they were enthusiastic about it. say we're going to have a meeting and we're going to proceed so they could get him to agree to exactly the same thing in nicaragua. they were going to continue war. so mr. reagan and i jointly signed this document that i first blasted and then another modified and changed here and there a little bit. got the senate leaders on board, the house, the republican and democrat invited ambassadors on nicaragua to a lunch and sat there and talked with him and said, what would it take in your opinion to get you people to agree to this?
not to help anybody do it, to get rid of those advisors from russia and from cuba that you got down there and military advisors to get them out of your country and have free elections, have a cease-fire and give amnesty to these guys who have been like there, he said he would do it. but i think he denied that they had been doing -- we thought they had been doing it and he said we're only -- but you've got to stop financing the invasion of our country. we thought we had to make it. and we worked together and we got it to fall apart at times. i was just on staten island and they called our house and said they'd all signed off on it. i don't remember a happier moment in hi
life -- my life than that moment was awakened in the middle of the night. i thought we made peace. here and there. i realized there was a profound difference between the concept that the administration has of getting other people to put on what he's done and the concept i had always operated from their idea was in these countries that weren't freezing them, these countries that were violating civil rights and doing things we disapproved of when they would send the emissaries here, they weren't even here. that was one way of doing it. and the ambassador he's been here because i'm out some 18 months or something like that, nobody in the government has been ready to see and talk with him. he's
always been on. and that's intense and when it came secretary of state wanted to see him and the president didn't want to see him. it was his 42nd birthday and it was snowing for the first time of year i had ever seen it notice and he came up and we talked and i said look, you've got -- you've got to do this. you're holding the whole thing up. my idea, if you want somebody to do something, you have to do something and come together. you got to hear his side, look him in the eye. well, so we were hiring them and lowering them as they were saying in football. tommy and were talking about that the other day. they were hiring them and i was lowering them and finally, it started to come together and some people in the white house didn't want it to
come together. they wanted to fall for it as a good reason and in cases we would be going to war. i couldn't do that. i had given my words, some on the democratic side said you're setting yourself up to be ambushed? those guys are going to pull the rug out from under you. i didn't believe that. i believed the president of the united states. and it finally came to pass and after george bush was elected, he and i sat down before he took office and in my office, sat at the round table there and he had a steak and i had a steak and we talked about things, different things we didn't agree on, we thought of several of them. one of them was the budget. so those were
things that we worked on and i said one time and this was the leader, the minority or majority leader to be a composite of three things. you have to be quite well speeched and look after their flock. here they have problems in the member that each one of those people, guys and gals represents almost exact same number of people and was entitled to being attended to respected. i have discovered that the best thing i can do is help sell this is go on television after the president's state of the union message, used those words and
see the reasons, nobody think that it was magnificent, i was a bit hesitant to follow in. but the mayor told me that that was the best thing they did. and you've got to -- you've got to be whether you carried out as daddy said the public on the outside guy as well as the inside guy. you got to be an evangelist and then in the third place, you have this. i don't know how much we were but as i look back in amazement and have hope, i am grateful that we were given an opportunity it came about under bush, first president 1990. they had three elections and a lady whose husband had been to the ones
that they published out there. a friend whose son i had become aquainted with, i had talked to the sondanistas and they'd come. and i do hope some of the things that we're able to do together these days, the ongoing effort to see success because i think the system and the things that we hold dearest. so we all have imperfections and failures. yes, it was.
it's a great honor to have four speakers, three other speakers, here. today we've had a chance to sit down and talk informally a little bit today and tell the other sides of the story on how other -- how pieces of legislation have gotten passed in other years. it's i think a great opportunity for us to come
together, have pieces of this time be recorded for history and for us to put something down in the history books that other ages can come back and say that this is how history came together. these are the people that helped make it happen. but we also know that sometimes the job of speaker we're only ring masters. we're not the trap pizz artists, not the lion tamers. that there are other great actors in this game of parliamentary procedure. and legislating as well. but we do help bring this legislation to the floor. we have helped make legislation move forward and have helped shape history as it moves through this great capitol.
>> i've got to say walking down the hall just watching a number of you, ask spooker haster what was going to happen on medicare the core which is really about position and each of us have been honored first by our districts and then by our colleagues to serve the country in the second most powerful job in the country. political job in the country. and i think all of us would admit that we've each learned from the other and we stand on each other's shoulders. it's a long continuity and it's a great honor to be back here with my colleagues. this is a very good day for us to be talking about the nature of the changing all constantly evolving nature of the u.s. house and speakership. >> great pleasure for me to be here along with nuth and jim and of course i want to thank speaker hastert for making this possible. we have had a great talking --
time talking informally together. a lot of the problems when being a speaker whether a democratic speaker or republican speaker, part of that is managing a somewhat large confingnt of distinguished public servants but strong personalities at times. and we shared our experiences in doing that. what was just mentioned, i think is also on the minds of all of us. i think it was the greatest honor of my life to be elected by 30 years by my constituents in eastern washington but perhaps a greatest hon senior to be elected by those who are also elected by their constituents, or at least a majority of those in the house to serve as the speaker. the constitution is very brief. it just says the house shall choose a speaker. and a trivia question, you don't even have to be a member to be speaker but we've never
had a member not speaker. and our speakership involves not only fairness but also to the party leader. we've enjoyed. it's a great pleasure to be here and be part of this. >> i want to thank you for your initiative in bringing us together here. to be chosen speaker of the united states house of representatives i suppose is the greatest honor that can be bestowed on all my friends. and sometimes i'm inclind to give up, the responsibilities are enough to humble you. you can't solve all the
problems. they're human problems. they defy the human capabilities that any of us have. but i always found it was very beneficial to stop and remember every one of those other members of the house representives just almost exactly the same number of people that i did, and to realize that person is entitled to respect and if he or she has something to say. if i was to reiterate anything that was told to me i think it would be when sam rayburn said the greatest asset of a country is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. allow your adversary the same
assumption. but honestly and patriotism. you expect him or her to encourage the same. i think we all insist of that. thank you. >> could you talk to us about medicare. >> we're close. we have to get something that can pass in the senate and house. it's a very narrow line. we're trying to get an agreement that's bipartisan. that's also very difficult. we're very close of trying to get that but it's also a
juncture that could be very far away. and we're trying to get it done. we're seeing if we can get it done. it's our greatest desire to be there but we're not there yet. >> talk about being disagreeing without being disagreeable. there's those who say this place is more divided. i would be interested in knowing the capacity whether you see that as a progression or disagree? >> this is a big philosophical to take a shot that you can do that. i think there's been a change in the last 40 years. when speaker wright first came to congress, there was a lot of bolweevels and the philosophies broke more along the lines of probably geography and whether you were conservative or a
moderate as opposed to exactly whether you were necessarily republican or democrat. i think that changed over a period of years. i think there was a real change. and i think over the last 25, 30 years that most the splits are really in philosophy come down along party lines now rather than whether it's conservative or moderate situation. so i think that tends to make the house and the senate a more partisan place. but there are great partisan battles and that's how we make the legislation and that's the debates we have. and that's what the results we have when we get done is that difference between and the melding out and trying to come to conclusion. and an agreement between two
i think we have to change a few things around. thank you very much. [applause] >> i wonder if you would tell us a little bit more about what the fund is doing all around the world to improve regulation and supervision. i no you have active programs and it will be good to hear what your involvement is. >> we operate at different levels. the global level and see each other regularly. hosea is the representative is one of those meetings. we participate in the financial stability board. we sit on various committees that often meet in switzerland and we try to bring a perspective that is
not so much the central bankers perspective or not so much the supervisors of the particular countries perspective but to move global perspective. we are also trying to bring to those meetings the views and voices of those that are not necessarily represented. emerging markets economies, low economies, low income economies. that is a critical role that we have to continue playing. then at the local level there is a lot of activity going on either when we do the annual sort of audit of the economy of our 188 members is very often expert in banking and monetary policies and finance joined the teams. that is taking place annually but we do what we
call the article for review we also do something that is highly valued by the membership, the financial sector assessment work done by a specialized team. they will come quite a while to actually go under the skin of the banking and financial sector and give a candid sort of third-party assessment of what -- where the risks are what the policy should be and it is a really good health check that is valued by the membership. i tried to disassociate what we do globally and will redo at the national level. >> would you like to take a turn? >> yeah.
fashion they go beyond the banking sector, particularly if some of those players will to call the taxpayers? >> that's a great question. the financial crisis just very clearly reveals that even outside the regular banking sector the shadow banking sector, non- finance, nine party financial sector we have risks that were very similar to the risks we have traditionally had in making. an example is that lehman and bear stearns the two firms in aig that got into the gravest trouble during the crisis or not regulated banking organizations at all and yet the risks that they were taking were very similar to the kinds of risks that led to runs on
banks in the past. the money market all of these markets developed important sources of credit for the economy but also had run like characteristics. so when troubles of their were essentially runs in these markets. in some cases, as you mentioned, the government and the money market fund case did come in and step in so it is important that we keep an eye on and appropriately regulate the shadow banking sector. i think we're making progress. the financial stability oversight council is charged with designating some non-bank institutions as systemic and then putting them under federal reserve supervision and so far they had designated for nonfinancial companies and
then also ate of what they call financial market utilities entities that are either do central clearing or play a key role in the payment and settlement system these have been designated and/or supervised and recognized to have systemic risk. we have adopted new regulations. we saw problems and securitization on the fact that in the run-up to the crisis so many securitize is to not really keep risk on their own balance sheet, did not have skin in the game. we have put we have put in place knew regulations that ought to make a significant difference. money market funds the sec has put in place knew rules for prime institutional funds that get rid of the fixed dollar value. they will have net asset values that will reduce run
risk. that aside to allow firms to impose fees something that could create financial stability risk that we need to watch. the so called tri-party repo market which is a major source of short-term wholesale funding, that contained great risks. we have taken steps important steps to mitigate. central counterparties a thrust of reform has been to try to move as many derivative contracts as possible into central counterparties to have them. by central counterparties something that serves to reduce risk and complexity and enhance financial stability but when these entities themselves become
systemic and clearly need supervision something that you have mentioned in imf work is that we have a major growth of open ended mutual funds where you have funds that are investing in highly illiquid assets. the industries are promised immediate liquidity. if there are runs on those firms you have a kind of liquidity to maturity transformation there that can give rise to a fairly substantial moves. you have highlighted that we are focus on as well. >> liquidity illusion. >> yes. >> let me come back to you if i could. the regulatory reforms that are taking place i wondered
if the fund is doing some work in trying to assess what the impact of these reforms might be on other countries. >> sure. yes, and we do that thanks to the global role that we play and the left -- and the national level involvement. at the global level what has been striking for me is that we have been able to bring together regulators and supervisors to did not have a chance or did not pay attention to what could have been or what were loopholes no space arbitrage and there have been quite a few of those. we play the role of bringing together all those that are
changing the rules. i remember vividly a meeting that we had with figures canada and vulture all present in the room together with other central bankers and supervisors and discussing where one set of tools was going to actually be an issue for another region where different regulations would apply. we play that particular role in terms of spillover we have observed lately is because of the different business model that was induced by the knew regulation as all we have observed a change in the banks themselves. there size has reduced, the footprint has changed and a lot of those subsidiaries or branches that were in the entire world remember those days when banks were saying we are global. lots of points on the map to say we are all there. it would look a lot different today.
cause them to sell the operation to generally regional banks to national banks out there that are prepared to grow and take over what the large players were downloading essentially in order to subsidize the requirements. so there has been that particular spillover aspect. the 3rd role is to actually help emerging market economies low income countries in developing countries actually adjust to the change of regulation and import in their own regulatory system the proper set of rules that will help them deepened their financial market and make it more inclusive as well as safer. the study the study i just referred to which shows that deepening and more inclusive financial sectors are actually not mutually exclusive from stability and
growth provided that there is the right set of rules and supervision in place. we work very hard on those principles. back to me to ask you a question. and in no way i'm going back to my.about the alignment of incentives and with the societal and good finance. you. you talk to yourself but the danger of distorted incentives in the financial sector. there are critics out there who will argue that with very low interest rates this is actually distorting incentives and leading to a buildup of risk to financial stability. what can you tell them? >> i think this is very important question and i think what i 1st have to
say is interest rates low interest rates in the united states. target has been a zero for an unthinkable six plus years, and we are now seeing interest rates at zero and other advanced countries. there is a reason for this. the reason is that we really think this policy is necessary to help our economies moved back to full employment and to achieve price stability. in terms of financial stability for meeting those objectives actually has a favorable financial stability effect. low interest rates have supported job creation and economic growth help households certainly in the united states engaged in balance sheet repair to be
able to pay down debt and they are in a much more sound position them as our banks, but it is true that in a low interest environment we need to be sensitive and watch for risk to financial stability. low interest rates can certainly incense some investors to reach revealed. it can send them to take a leveraged positions they can create financial stability risks. and i guess we're doing two things. we are monitoring very carefully to look to see if those risks are developing and to the extent we do see some risks developing of course we are trying to take action where we can can but we are speaking out more generally about the risks that we see developing and i'll give you a couple of examples. in the market for leverage
loans we have certainly seen a reach revealed and are seeing a deterioration in underwriting standards something we have been highlighting for a number of years. and in our role as supervisor of financial institutions that are underwriting these loans we are trying to ensure that underwriting standards move up in our higher to diminish risks. we have also seen a compulsion and spread around high-yield debt which certainly looks like a reach for yield. i guess i would highlight that equity market valuations generally are quite high. not so high when you compare them to returns on equities the equities, the returns on
safe assets like bonds which are also very low but there are potential dangers there. and and in interest rates obviously not only short the long-term interest rates said at low the embodying low term premiums which can move and can move very rapidly. we saw this in the case of the taper tantrum in 2013 four their was a very sharp upward move and rates. you do have divergent monetary policy potentially around the world. we need to be attentive to the possibility that it is time to begin raising rates. premiums can premiums can move up and we could see a sharp jump and long-term rates. we are trying to come as i have repeatedly said to my communicate as clearly about monetary policy so that we
don't take markets by surprise. in addition, i would say low interest rates can create interest rate risk of financial institutions. many banks are finding their net interest margins are depressed, they have an incentive to take an addition on duration a credit risk and if interest rates move up that can create risks in our supervision and stress tests we are looking for that and analyzing their ability. insurance companies, pension funds are subject to the same kind of pressures in the low interest rate environment. they find it hard to make their targets. and so regulatory agencies am wondering insurance companies and pension funds. the overall the risk to
financial stability is moderated not elevated. i say that because we are not seeing any broad-based pickup and leverage. we're not seeing rapid credit growth. we are not seeing an increase in maturity transformation command i would call those things kind of the hallmark of financial bubble or the precursors of the financial crisis. >> if i may follow-up, i remember those days with your credit sister and how important it was telling us is pretty much under control they found out that they did not have the legal grounds
with the potential to address them in due course. or are you better equipped today? >> i think we are better equipped today simply because in some of these markets we have improved regulation. those things i think function better than they did. i think we're willing. not banking with organizations. much higher capitol and liquidity standards that applies to all of the nature
go, mr. chair. i think we got to put a quarter in it. there you go. the subcommittee will come to order. our hearing today is on global health programs, and we have a panel of incredibly brilliant people who i'm honored to welcome you to the united states senate so you can inform the senate and american people and the world about the good causes you represent. ambassador at large thank you very much for coming. u.s. special representative for global health diplomacy, u.s. department of state. dr. mark dybul. sir elton john, founder of the elton john a.i.d.s. foundation. and dr. rick
warren, pastor of saddleback church. to each of you, thank you for coming. you have an incredibly busy schedule. you made time to talk about causes near and dear to your heart. i will make a brief opening statement to subcommittee members. thank you for showing up. to senator leahy, it's been a pleasure working with you and tim in the minority and the majority. as politics change in this country, senator leahy and i are going to make sure the commitment of this does not change. at the end of the day, i've tried, along with senator leahy, to shine a light on what the 150 count does for the united states and the world. it's 1% of our budget. here's what i would suggest to other members of the body. find an account anywhere throughout the budget that gets a better rate of return than the 150 account. so 1% of the budget is 50 something billion dollars when you add it all up. that